Tom,

Thanks for laying that out so well. I often go back to read Ryan's 2005 book for his views relevant to gear issues or techniques that I'm looking into.

Wish Ryan would issue his cell number to life members (a new benefit?) so they can call him to hash over whatever's on their mind in prepping a trip.

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/11/2012 17:50:53 MST.

Dan, I didn't mean to leave you out (or anyone else), I guess I was just listing the "production" players.

My first pack (1960's) was a wood frame backboard with a canvas bag attached, fits the description, but not really relevant to the discussion.

I think the poster wants an option like you did/do and the others in Ultralight. I They have not been profitable in the production arena so far; though the idea is a good one.

Any further discussion about this concept should be moved to another thread so we don't further detract from this thread.

I agree with both Doug and Tom. Both bring up some good points about the article. I definitely agree with Tom's admonishment that we should be glad that Ryan is getting involved with the community again.

But two things... One is that I can't help but get the sense that Ryan seems to be resentful about how things in this community have been going. A lot of that very much is legitimate and I'm sure that if I was in his position I, too, would find it difficult to hold back the backlash I'd want to let loose. I do feel that the long silence may in part have contributed to the resentments all around never getting resolved, but I guess now is better than never.

Which brings me to the second, more important (in the context of this review) point. This is supposed to be one of BPL's "as objective as possible" reviews. Isn't that what BPL reviews are famous for? That half of the readers in this thread (including myself) are spending more time talking about the tone of the article than on the subject of the review, says a lot about both the way the article was written and the atmosphere of the forums. There seems to be partly be an assumption that Ryan is the one who should be listened to, while readers are "followers" and therefore their outrage (or support) don't carry the same weight, or that readers don't have the expertise or legitimacy to make comments. Hmm. Perhaps it is more in the middle somewhere? Some of the criticisms here are right on the mark, others less so.

Either way, the article does have problems with it, especially so soon after the uncomfortable thread Ryan started not too long ago. Personally, my main concern with the article was that it was reviewing a product that hadn't gone through its paces yet, and still needed more time out in the hills for the reviewers to get a proper evaluation of the pack. I felt kind of put off by being expected to take the review seriously when the reviewers themselves still hadn't gotten a complete picture of what it was they were using. It is the first review of this kind that I've seen on BPL. Seemed quite strange to me. A "rolling review"? Both Ryan and Chris (especially Chris) have been extolling the virtues of and waxing joyous about the pack that they've been inputting to HMG in its design. I'm sure they are both trying their best to be objective about the review, but I can't help but think that they've already decided what they think of their own design (yes, I am aware of Ryan's statement that he had no part in the design... which in itself seems contrary to earlier things he and Chris had written in the forums, on Twitter, and in the blogs. Seems contrary to the very standards that BPL adheres to.

Maybe I'm just reading more into all this than should be. But what is a review for except to make these kinds of observations and criticisms?

Edited by butuki on 01/11/2012 18:17:36 MST.

Yes Tad, let's get down to brass tacks....

Ryan probably says many things tongue in cheek of course, as I tend to do, and this does not often come across like it is intended when the proper smiley faces and etc. are not applied. If I was in Ryan's postion, I would have a very very hard time taking all of this TOO seriously, and would be coming off the same way......if not worse! And when I say all of it, I don't just mean these few editorials, but 1000% of everything. :>)

The worst part is that this is all more fun than actually working!

Edited by wildlife on 01/11/2012 18:22:59 MST.

cant make people happy either way ...

some demand more reviews and updates ... when it doesnt go the way some people want, they complain

a review is just that ... a review ... full of opinions... what you make of them is up to you

if you dont like it, vote with your feet and wallets ... its that simple

personally i like the idea of a 55L+ fully framed durable pack that weights under 1000gm ... i personally think that would benefit more people than some sack with straps, there are enough of those around ...

but hey ... its your back ...

Oops, I was not referring to this article, except the 'off-the-cuffness' part, just in case it was taken that way by anyone. I better get out of here while I still can. :>)

2 lb framed packs are cool in my boat.

Hey Eric, is that 1000 gms a play on my 1000% ? That's funny. I had a Cuben Fiber dream the other night and even tried to get back into it after I woke up.

Edited by wildlife on 01/11/2012 18:55:14 MST.

Hey that Some at the beginning of the preface was edited in this morning after I called them on it. I had copied and pasted the text right into my reply. And doesn't that make Ryan's good catch post make sense now. Glad to see it changed. A retraction of sorts would have been proper.

Edited by kthompson on 01/12/2012 06:38:44 MST.

"Lets focus on the features and benefits of the pack."

Thank you.

no play dan

1000gm is a good ballpark for us metric bums ...

Didn't read all the pages but it wasn't on the first page (that I noticed).

$275 for the Porter, $300 for the Expedition on the HMG website.

The price of the Porter ($275) is also shown at or near the bottom row of each of the three tables in the article.

They recently had a sale and I got mine for $206.

I read the table wrong. Anyway, thanks for all the *helpful* replies!

NM :>)

Edited by wildlife on 01/12/2012 03:47:34 MST.

Chris said "Some people like a review/article/story with edge/flair/personality, some don't. Fair enough."

The preface was at odds with what is (was?) the whole ethos of the site.
Who said anything about not liking 'edge/flair/personality'?

At first, i thought the preface had been copied from a 'traditional' backpacking site as a joke.


The next time a double wall 6 pound tent gets revewied, will there be a preface with disparaging comments about gram counting tarp and single wall shelter users?

Ach, I promised myself I wouldn't get into these contrary discussions anymore. Didn't take my own advice.

I miss the pleasant, constructive, and mutually supportive BPL of old when few would have thought about making rancorous statements. I fear I've fallen into the mud pit, too. Time to back away. Hard to form an informed opinion about something you've never even seen.

Miguel,
I fear that you outline a general trend of society and not just a BPL phenomenon. Pessimistic, I know.

Well, the review was a bit...unfinished. I am sort of looking to replace my older GG Miniposa. At something less than one pound, I would consider anything well made in that range. That is a true Light Weight pack to me. At ~2500ci (~40L) it has served me well but is wearing out. It has stays and a pad pocket for frame. It works well for anything I need/want...up to ~25pounds. Heavier gear? Longer trips? Well, I do a week at a time more often than not, sometimes weekends, sometimes a couple weeks.

At 24, or 32onces I have to stop and say, no. This back is too heavy. A simple criteria that only a few packs ever meet. To simply give up on a packs in that range, 2200-2500ci (35-40L) simply because the pack is built heavier than needed, means giving up on most packs, including the HMG. I am a bit disapointed. HMG, using UL cuben material and hybrids, has sort of missed the mark. And, they missed a UL backpackers needs (mine at least,) regardless of how well it carries. It is simply too heavy for the size.

Group leaders, guides, need heavier packs. They will often carry extra stuff out of necessity. Larger first aid kits, extra food, a camp saw, etc. This stuff adds an extra 5-10 pounds. Any guide that can take a group out for a week with less than 30pounds on his back, is really not doing what he needs to do for the group. So, I understand Mr. Jordan's and Mr. Wallace's sentiments. As the included picture shows, things happen, and, it is not that unusual to have to carry someone's pack, as well as your own. My question is whether this stuff is really relavent to a solo or couple out backpacking for a weekend. Or, relavent to me on a week long unsuported trip through some portion of ADK's. Or, relavent to most UL people (anyone with less than a 10 pound base pack...2 pounds to carry 10 pounds???)

The waterproofness of the pack looks good. I like most things about the pack, except the weight. Carrying a 2pound pack for even a light load(20pound base) still results in a 10% dead weight carry, just looking at the numbers. Iff you get your base pack down to 10 pounds, this jumps to 20%. If I can cut that to about 5%, I am doing better. I manage to carry a 20lb pack load OK, despite having a bad back. I do not plan on going back to a 2 pound pack...at least not while I am alive, though the wife says she will bury my dead body with a pack. Ya' know, this pack looks it might last for an eternity after all. 'Corse nothing lasts forever...

Just so it's out there...

Not everything we review, report on, or tell stories about is going to appeal to everyone on the site. In fact, I'm working on putting together State of the Market reports on winter quilts and 'mids in the 20-25oz range. A lot of people don't go out in winter and most, if not all, of the soloists would scoff at a 'mid so "heavy". The reality is you can very easily carry a 2 lb pack, 2 lb shelter, and 2 lb sleep system while still having a sub 10 lb base weight so you can call yourself "UL".

We should be placing a lot more emphasis on having the correct tool for the job instead of how superduperultralight (or not) it might be. Would you support your car on cardboard boxes before crawling under it to drain the oil? No, you'd use steel jack stands or maybe even a heavier lift.

With that said, if you're interested in seeing a review on a specific piece of gear, then get involved and submit a proposal. Or just sit there and groan, but don't expect to be taken too seriously.

Edited by simplespirit on 01/12/2012 06:17:23 MST.